PDA

View Full Version : AP/Pew Nov Poll: Ron Paul 9%




cdellin
12-04-2007, 09:54 AM
From Poll: Romney Maintains Lead in NH (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5juburdSSdigTLtmCg6Ez87e67L_gD8TAMP980):

THE RACE: The presidential race for Republicans in New Hampshire

THE NUMBERS
Mitt Romney, 37 percent
Rudy Giuliani, 19 percent
John McCain, 15 percent
Ron Paul, 9 percent
Mike Huckabee, 7 percent

Almost in double digits! Donate to Operation Live Free or Die (http://www.operationlivefreeordie.com) to help out!

- Chris

xd9fan
12-04-2007, 09:55 AM
and isnt this 2000 and 2004 GOP primary voters

WE are going to shock and awe!!!

nist7
12-04-2007, 09:56 AM
We are already in the double digits:

"The telephone poll, done by The Associated Press and the Pew Research Center, was conducted Nov. 7-25 and involved interviews with 446 likely Republican voters in New Hampshire. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.5 percentage points."

Error margin is 5.5%...this makes almost everyone an equal contender, except for Romney, who seems to be clearly in front.

ItsTime
12-04-2007, 09:58 AM
These are mostly Bush Voters:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=375

Scroll down and look on the right sidebar. Iowa Bush approval rating 80% 72% in SC???? New Hampshire 55% dont know 10%???? Bush voters.

Badger Paul
12-04-2007, 09:59 AM
Romney's in front now but if he loses to Huckabee in Iowa his campaign will come undone and that will open New Hampshire to us.

literatim
12-04-2007, 10:00 AM
Romney's in front now but if he loses to Huckabee in Iowa his campaign will come undone and that will open New Hampshire to us.

If he loses to Ron Paul in Iowa, his campaign will come undone.

pdog
12-04-2007, 10:06 AM
Iowa would look better for Paul if Tancredo dropped out.

ThePieSwindler
12-04-2007, 10:06 AM
Isnt paul polling like 27% among independants? I remember a poll a week or so ago that had a statistic like that. If so, arent his real numbers then among all NH voters much higher, basically 2nd place behind Romney(who also leads among indys)? It seems Romney is our only real overall competition.

EvilEngineer
12-04-2007, 10:08 AM
Lol.. did thompson drop off the face of the earth?

ItsTime
12-04-2007, 10:08 AM
Yes he is. Behind Mitt at 31%

This poll is all Bush supporters:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=526474&postcount=4


Isnt paul polling like 27% among independants? I remember a poll a week or so ago that had a statistic like that. If so, arent his real numbers then among all NH voters much higher, basically 2nd place behind Romney(who also leads among indys)? It seems Romney is our only real overall competition.

RPinSEAZ
12-04-2007, 10:10 AM
At this point someone losing to Huckabee in Iowa is not a surprise and won't destroy a campaign, but anyone losing to Ron Paul, Huckabee, Tom Tancredo or Fred Thompson in New Hampshire is effectively done.

PredatorOC
12-04-2007, 10:11 AM
These are mostly Bush Voters:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=375

Scroll down and look on the right sidebar. Iowa Bush approval rating 80% 72% in SC???? New Hampshire 55% dont know 10%???? Bush voters.

Wow.

I thought the 'they only poll Bush supporters' line was a myth, but it seems to be the case at least with this poll. 77% support for the war among NH republicans? Doesn't seem to add up any other way.

ItsTime
12-04-2007, 10:12 AM
Myth no more we have proof. Spread it.




Wow.

I thought the 'they only poll Bush supporters' line was a myth, but it seems to be the case at least with this poll. 77% support for the war among NH republicans? Doesn't seem to add up any other way.

margomaps
12-04-2007, 10:12 AM
This is very interesting, since a poll came out last week that showed Huckabee at...what, 14% in NH? It really speaks to the variability of the poll results, and drives home the importance of remembering that margin-of-error!

nist7
12-04-2007, 10:14 AM
Isnt paul polling like 27% among independants? I remember a poll a week or so ago that had a statistic like that. If so, arent his real numbers then among all NH voters much higher, basically 2nd place behind Romney(who also leads among indys)? It seems Romney is our only real overall competition.


This is exactly why ALL the poll numbers lie. Dr. Paul is polling in voters that have never voted, and voters from other parties.

It's really up in the air right now and we'll find out in a few weeks.....

gagnonstudio
12-04-2007, 10:15 AM
Wow.

I thought the 'they only poll Bush supporters' line was a myth, but it seems to be the case at least with this poll. 77% support for the war among NH republicans? Doesn't seem to add up any other way.

I said this yesterday and got flamed. Glad you agree about the bush supporters thing, and didn't get flamed yet. :)

constituent
12-04-2007, 10:15 AM
it's not up in the air. it is securely in the hands of very dedicated supporters knocking on doors in all of these key states... they're winning this thing one day at a time.

Mattsa
12-04-2007, 10:18 AM
This is exactly why ALL the poll numbers lie. Dr. Paul is polling in voters that have never voted, and voters from other parties.

It's really up in the air right now and we'll find out in a few weeks.....

All the more reason for them to try to rig the vote, and I have no doubt there will be foul play if RP does too well against the opposition.

Has any independent organization figured out a way to accurately sample the likely outcome?

margomaps
12-04-2007, 10:27 AM
I said this yesterday and got flamed. Glad you agree about the bush supporters thing, and didn't get flamed yet. :)

There's a big difference between having your inaccurate statements called out, and 'getting flamed'. :)

While I agree that the results of some of these polls suggest that the respondents apparently approve of Bush's performance at a higher rate than the national average, this certainly does not mean that "The pollsters only called Republicans who voted for Bush in the 2004 primaries!!!" -- an annoyingly baseless claim I see being made here with alarming frequency.

I think there's a misunderstanding going on here. It could very well be that -- for some as-yet unknown/unproven reason -- Bush supporters are being overrepresented in telephone polls. I won't deny that this is a possibility. And I won't deny the implication: that Ron's "real" support is likely higher than the polls indicate.

But to childishly claim that polling companies are going out of their way to include only "Bush 2004 primary voters" in their samples...well, that's out of line. To those who make this claim, I say: grow up!

RPinSEAZ
12-04-2007, 10:31 AM
I think there's a misunderstanding going on here. It could very well be that -- for some as-yet unknown/unproven reason -- Bush supporters are being overrepresented in telephone polls. I won't deny that this is a possibility. And I won't deny the implication: that Ron's "real" support is likely higher than the polls indicate.

Polling companies are not stupid either and they correct their polling figures to account for over-representation or under-representation of particular demographics.

Bradley in DC
12-04-2007, 10:32 AM
Wow.

I thought the 'they only poll Bush supporters' line was a myth, but it seems to be the case at least with this poll. 77% support for the war among NH republicans? Doesn't seem to add up any other way.

There were far more reasons to vote in the primaries in 2004: governors, 1/3 of senators, all US Reps., lots of state and local issues. Get over the "Bush" exclusive mentality.

RPFTW!
12-04-2007, 10:34 AM
I think polling companies have been corrupted like everything else in the world of politics, they are too important for public opinion to not be manipulated. Just like the CIA had Operation Mockingbird for the media I'm sure they have something for the polls as well.

margomaps
12-04-2007, 10:36 AM
Polling companies are not stupid either and they correct their polling figures to account for over-representation or under-representation of particular demographics.

This is certainly true. But admittedly it would be difficult to account for under-representation of Paul's "cellphone-only" block of voters.

leonster
12-04-2007, 10:38 AM
There were far more reasons to vote in the primaries in 2004: governors, 1/3 of senators, all US Reps., lots of state and local issues. Get over the "Bush" exclusive mentality.

But in the primaries? How many contested seats were there in the primaries in 2004?

Some... but not many, I would wager. I think 2004 primary voters were more likely to be Bush supporters than 2008 primary voters will be--let's put it that way.

But let's not get cocky, either. We still have a LOT to do!

RPinSEAZ
12-04-2007, 10:40 AM
This is certainly true. But admittedly it would be difficult to account for under-representation of Paul's "cellphone-only" block of voters.

I would bet that Obama has an equally large section of cellphone only block of voters, yet you don't see him with polling issues.

gagnonstudio
12-04-2007, 10:40 AM
There's a big difference between having your inaccurate statements called out, and 'getting flamed'. :)

While I agree that the results of some of these polls suggest that the respondents apparently approve of Bush's performance at a higher rate than the national average, this certainly does not mean that "The pollsters only called Republicans who voted for Bush in the 2004 primaries!!!" -- an annoyingly baseless claim I see being made here with alarming frequency.

I think there's a misunderstanding going on here. It could very well be that -- for some as-yet unknown/unproven reason -- Bush supporters are being overrepresented in telephone polls. I won't deny that this is a possibility. And I won't deny the implication: that Ron's "real" support is likely higher than the polls indicate.

But to childishly claim that polling companies are going out of their way to include only "Bush 2004 primary voters" in their samples...well, that's out of line. To those who make this claim, I say: grow up!


you misquoted me. I said "bush supporters." I am a critic of polls but I don't think they are rigged. And by the results of most polls, the people polled are "bush supporters." I didn't say they called a list of Bush voters from 2004. Get your facts straight.

Goldwater Conservative
12-04-2007, 10:45 AM
If this trend holds, we're basically tied with McCain in the first two voting states (in addition to being tied with Thompson in Iowa and ahead of Thompson and Huckabee in NH). The media really has no basis for shafting Paul in the debates or media coverage if that's the case.

ItsTime
12-04-2007, 10:58 AM
Bradley please explain to me why then Bush approval ratting is 80% in Iowa. 72% in SC.


There were far more reasons to vote in the primaries in 2004: governors, 1/3 of senators, all US Reps., lots of state and local issues. Get over the "Bush" exclusive mentality.

margomaps
12-04-2007, 11:07 AM
you misquoted me. I said "bush supporters." I am a critic of polls but I don't think they are rigged. And by the results of most polls, the people polled are "bush supporters." I didn't say they called a list of Bush voters from 2004. Get your facts straight.

I didn't quote you -- I was quoting a sentiment that I've seen echoed here repeatedly. Please accept my apologies for associating you with this sentiment.

I'm glad we both agree that the polling companies aren't simply dialing up Bush supporters and asking their opinions.

It appears we're in complete agreement, yet misunderstanding persists. Such is the nature of online discussions sometimes.

Highstreet
12-04-2007, 11:19 AM
Yes he is. Behind Mitt at 31%

This poll is all Bush supporters:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=526474&postcount=4

If you look in that same lineup you see that

The Majority of Repubs want someone who will "take us in a new direction"

This is the line that Paul needs to keep repeating. Dems poll high on this too.

Paul needs to trump up that he is the only candidate offering that.

PredatorOC
12-04-2007, 11:23 AM
There were far more reasons to vote in the primaries in 2004: governors, 1/3 of senators, all US Reps., lots of state and local issues. Get over the "Bush" exclusive mentality.

I don't have a 'bush exclusive mentality'. I haven't really had an opinion on the polls before, other than personally wondering if the theory on 'only 2000/2004 voters' presented by some is true or not. In this poll there clearly is something odd. I don't know what it is, but 77% support for the war is unusual.

But that Paul is being undermined actually has a benefit, since this way the campaign will stay under the radar of other candidates. Huckabee will be taking fire from all sides thanks to his rise at this point (Thompson seems to already have one attack ad on Huckabee, among other candidates, on his site).

margomaps
12-04-2007, 11:28 AM
Bradley please explain to me why then Bush approval ratting is 80% in Iowa. 72% in SC.

That's a very good question. Lets look at some numbers:

- According to a wide variety of polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm) Bush's approval ratings are at 30-35%.

- According to people-press.org (http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=103), about 37% of the electorate are Republicans, 37% are Democrats, and apparently the remainder (26%) are not affiliated with either party.

- We can probably safely assume that the vast majority of Bush's 30-35% approval comes from Republicans, and some conservative independents.

- Republicans (37%) plus independent conservatives (13%) equals about 50% of the electorate.

- Assuming Democrats and other non-Republican-leaning independents universally say Bush is doing a bad job, then that means the 30-35% approval rating comes from about 50% of the population.

- That implies that 60-70% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents approve of the job Bush is doing.

This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that Iowa and South Carolina are more conservative states than the nation as a whole. That difference can easily explain the delta between the calculated 60-70% and the 72%/80% of support you see in the Iowa/SC polls.

Platondas
12-04-2007, 11:32 AM
I actually ran some numbers using the 04 campaign vs results and attempted to extrapolate them to today.
I think it is safe to say that a first order approximation of the cell hone vote will result in +2% for Ron Paul.
(Actual numbers showed Gallup under estimated Kerry, 1% of which was attributed by pollsters to the cell phone vote)

gagnonstudio
12-04-2007, 11:34 AM
I didn't quote you -- I was quoting a sentiment that I've seen echoed here repeatedly. Please accept my apologies for associating you with this sentiment.

I'm glad we both agree that the polling companies aren't simply dialing up Bush supporters and asking their opinions.

It appears we're in complete agreement, yet misunderstanding persists. Such is the nature of online discussions sometimes.

No Prob.

I think that its strange that Bush has such a high approval rating in these polls though. But no, they don't have a list of Bush voters to call.

wgadget
12-04-2007, 11:35 AM
http://www.insideradvantagegeorgia.com/webcast.php

JosephTheLibertarian
12-04-2007, 11:35 AM
so.. is this poll accurate or what? we have a real issue with two digit numbers.

margomaps
12-04-2007, 11:45 AM
No Prob.

I think that its strange that Bush has such a high approval rating in these polls though. But no, they don't have a list of Bush voters to call.

A better summary of my last post:

"When Bush's approval rating is 30-35%, and you poll the portion of the population that comprises the approval, don't be surprised with 60%-70%+."

Zydeco
12-04-2007, 12:02 PM
sweeeet

Zydeco
12-04-2007, 12:10 PM
I think polling companies have been corrupted like everything else in the world of politics, they are too important for public opinion to not be manipulated. Just like the CIA had Operation Mockingbird for the media I'm sure they have something for the polls as well.

obviously true, as much as people don't want to believe it. They may very well try to rig the vote.

fcofer
12-04-2007, 12:45 PM
obviously true, as much as people don't want to believe it. They may very well try to rig the vote.

It's not that we "don't want to believe" that the polls are rigged. It's that we don't want to be lulled by believing that they're rigged. I always try to guard against believing things on the basis of the desire that I have for them to be true.

I would actually be pleased if it could be demonstrated to me that there was deep, corrupted, deliberate bias in all of the polls. Then I wouldn't worry so much about the poll results. The problem is that many of the arguments that are brought forth by the poll detractors actually contradict basic mathematical and statistical theory. This hurts the credibility of other, unfalsifiable claims made by the poll detractors.

My gut feeling is that our actual support is indeed somewhat greater than that demonstrated by the polls, but not to an enormous degree. Our ace in the hole is that our supporters will be more likely to vote. However, in the South at least, Paul's name-recognition among average people really is a lot less than, say, Huckabee's.

We still have work left to be done. We can't thrust our heads into the sand with regards to these poll results. Until you can walk down the street and ask people, "Who is Ron Paul?" and at least 25% know who he is (much less support him), then you don't have much of a leg to stand on with regards to the poll critiques.

margomaps
12-04-2007, 12:56 PM
It's not that we "don't want to believe" that the polls are rigged. It's that we don't want to be lulled by believing that they're rigged. I always try to guard against believing things on the basis of the desire that I have for them to be true.

I would actually be pleased if it could be demonstrated to me that there was deep, corrupted, deliberate bias in all of the polls. Then I wouldn't worry so much about the poll results. The problem is that many of the arguments that are brought forth by the poll detractors actually contradict basic mathematical and statistical theory. This hurts the credibility of other, unfalsifiable claims made by the poll detractors.

My gut feeling is that our actual support is indeed somewhat greater than that demonstrated by the polls, but not to an enormous degree. Our ace in the hole is that our supporters will be more likely to vote. However, in the South at least, Paul's name-recognition among average people really is a lot less than, say, Huckabee's.

We still have work left to be done. We can't thrust our heads into the sand with regards to these poll results. Until you can walk down the street and ask people, "Who is Ron Paul?" and at least 25% know who he is (much less support him), then you don't have much of a leg to stand on with regards to the poll critiques.

Here's someone who has thought things through carefully. No spouting off wild, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. No making up "facts". No baseless accusations. Excellent post.